Monday, July 6, 2015

Right Side Patriots...LIVE x 2

On Wednesday, July 8th, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane
Sori will do two LIVE shows on CPR Worldwide Media...their regular 2-4pm
EST show and then at 7-9pm EST they will host and contribute to a
SPECIAL roundtable discussion with their fellow CPR talk show hosts and
CEO Michael Collins-Windsor called, 'DECEIVE, DISTRACT and DESTROY...The
Liberal Plan Exposed.'

Walker Maintains Lead in Iowa, As Race Tightens

Conservative Intel

Quinnipiac’s latest Iowa poll
released this week demonstrated a continued edge for Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker among the more than one dozen official GOP candidates.

Walker commands a sizeable lead with 18% followed by a horde of
second place contenders tied at roughly 10% including newly-announced
Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Two of the top leaders in the national polls, Jeb Bush and Marco
Rubio, did not fair as well in which they garnered 7-8% for middle of
the pack positions.

Moderate Republicans fare poorly — no surprise. Chris Christie, whose
unfavorable rating in the state has been shown in recent months to be
as high as 25%, pulled in dead last with a single point. Whether his
official announcement yesterday will improve that standing in future
polls remains to be seen.
Lindsay Graham also pulls in only one percentage point of support.

Bobby Jindal, who announced his run for president officially last
week, polled at 3 percent. Like Christie’s, Jindal’s entry into the race
could have implications for his numbers.

Perhaps most interesting is that Walker holds a solid (if
diminishing) lead while still not having officially declared a run,
reminiscent of Fred Thompson and Rick Perry, who entered past races
relatively late as the clear front-runners.

The question for Walker is whether he can maintain a lead after jumping in — something Thompson and Perry were unable to do.

The referendum on the terms of the new bailout European
leaders were offering Greece has been soundly rejected, with nearly 60
percent of Greek voters voting “no” on the deal. Greece’s economy has
been in free fall for five years, and voters could not stomach more
pension cuts and tax increases on an economy that has yet to find its
footing, according to the New York Times:

With more than 70 percent of the vote tallied, the
actual count tracked the projections, with 61 percent voting no and 39
percent yes, the Interior Ministry said.

The no votes carried virtually every district in the country, handing
a sweeping victory to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, a leftist who came
to power in January vowing to reject new austerity measures that he
called an injustice and economically self-defeating. Late last month he
walked away from negotiations in frustration at the creditors’ demands,
called the referendum and urged Greeks to vote no as a way to give him
more bargaining power.

While Mr. Tsipras now appears to have his wish, his victory in the
referendum settled little, since the creditors’ offer is no longer on
the table. There remains the possibility that they could walk away,
leaving Greece facing default, financial collapse and expulsion from the
eurozone and, in the worst case, from the European Union.

At stake, however, may be far more than Greece’s place in Europe, as
experts have offered wildly differing opinions about what the referendum
could mean for the future of the euro and, indeed, the world’s
financial markets.

Even before the voting was over, some European leaders began making efforts to contain the potential damage.
…

Islamic State video: Reward for jihad doubled in Ramadan

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

Note also the bit about how the jihadis get up every morning and read
the Qur’an. One might almost get the impression that this had something
to do with Islam, if we didn’t have John Kerry and David Cameron to
assure us to the contrary.

The best on-scene observer is Omri Ceren of TIP (The Israel Project). He writes:

In recent months the Iranians have violated the interim
JPOA by busting through energy export caps, injecting uranium gas into
advanced centrifuges, and falling short of the deal’s oxidation
requirement. They’ve also violated United Nations Security Council
resolutions by seeking to procure illicit nuclear infrastructure and
refusing to cooperate with the IAEA.

In all of those cases the Obama administration played Iran’s lawyer,
arguing either that the Iranians weren’t cheating or that the cheating
didn’t matter. Reuters just published what...

“EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in
concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of
regulating power plants.”
- Justice Antonin Scalia's words in the majority ruling
on the EPA “unreasonable” interpretation of the 'Clean Air Act'

Finally a decision we can all agree on...a decision against Obama and
crew that the media of course has basically ignored...a decision the High Court most assuredly got right...and it's a decision that truly affects us all.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court ruled on the challenge brought by a
number of energy industry groups along with Michigan and 22 other
states...with the energy and coal industries...much to Obama's
chagrin...finally being the big winners. In a 5 to 4* decision, the High
Court basically ruled that the administration's attempt...that the EPA's
attempt...to regulate the energy industry into kingdom come was NOT
worth the cost...especially when the EPA thought it was 'appropriate' to
garner $4 million to $6 million in health benefits at a cost of $9.6+
billion as NOT being unreasonable... when simple math tells you that it is.

Unreasonable...very unreasonable...and the justices were wise enough to see
this and in their majority decision said that as it stands now the EPA
is indeed “imposing great expenses on consumers” and it threatens to put
electric utilities out of business. And with Justice Scalia writing that the EPA “unreasonably"
failed to consider said costs of regulating toxic emissions from both
coal and oil-fired plants...and that the costs to utilities and others
in the power sector were ignored as being “irrelevant” even before limits
were set when the 'Clean Air Act' was passed decades ago...the Obama
administration finally was put in its place.

And know that the 'Clean Air Act' itself was at the heart of the SCOTUS
decision. What has been called Obama's landmark 'air quality rule'...a
rule that allows the EPA to regulate 'so-called' hazardous pollutants
from power plants if the regulation is found to be "appropriate and
necessary"...has rightfully been knocked down a peg or two. So
even though the administration's lawyers argued that coal and oil-fired
power plants were the biggest contributor to mercury contamination of
rivers and lakes...and even with their arguing that air pollutants like
mercury and arsenic might contribute to birth defects and certain
cancers as well as posing other health risks especially for pregnant
women and children...they (thankfully) failed to convince the majority of justices
that the regulations imposed were "appropriate and necessary.”

Continuing on in
his brief for said majority, Justice Scalia added that the EPA
“overreached” and that it was NOT “appropriate” nor was it “necessary”
to impose billions of dollars ($9.6+ billion) of economic costs in
return for just “a few dollars” in health or environmental benefits NO matter that curbing emissions of mercury and other
'so-called' hazardous air pollutants had already begun in April of this
year.

And know that the administration's lawyers argued against the decision
by claiming that the EPA did NOT initially take costs into consideration
because the 'threshold decision' to impose regulations was meant to be
based upon public health issues alone, and that once it was determined
that the air pollutants from coal and oil-fired power plants did indeed
pose a major hazard to public health, the EPA acted accordingly and
moved to the next stage of the process as set down under the 'Clean Air
Act.' Then in an obvious effort to cover their tracts, the lawyers
claimed that the EPA in determining what the limits on these health
hazard pollutants should be did somewhat take costs into consideration,
but that the consideration was given at a much later stage...at a stage
when they wrote the standards that are expected to reduce the toxic
emissions by 90% by sometime next year.

Adding that the 'regulatory
impact analysis' itself...which includes costs...should have “no bearing
on” the determination of whether any and all regulations are
“appropriate or necessary,” the administration lawyers of course NEVER
once admitted to the EPA either making honest mistakes or to the more
likely scenario that the EPA tried to pull the wool over 'We the
People's' eyes. And why should they when in the dissent by Justice Elena
Kagan said it was enough that the EPA “considered costs” at later
stages of the process.

So now with the SCOTUS decision reached the case goes back to the lower
courts for the EPA to decide how they will account for the costs and for how they will
remedy the costs, but what remains is the 'Clean Air Act' itself and
that is quite contentious in nature all on its own.

The 'Clean Air Act' is the federal law 'supposedly' designed to make
sure that all Americans have air that is safe to breathe, all while
protecting our environment from damage caused by air pollution. What we
are NOT being told is that in its own way it helps keep us dependent on
foreign oil. And with many U.S. businesses having a hard time
'cost-wise' meeting strict environmental regulations...and with
manufacturers spending almost $30 billion per year to comply with
sometimes unnecessary environmental regulations...they in turn are put
at a disadvantage competitive-wise in the world economy that results in
the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs at a time when our American
economy can ill afford it.

And in the EPA's establishing of national 'ambient air' quality standards
(ambient air is the highest concentration of a specific air pollutant
at a particular outdoor location, in a specified unit of time, that is
not considered hazardous to humans) for four known key
pollutants...carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide,
and total suspended particulates...the EPA was able to set rules
to the effect that each and every county in the U.S. (talk about
government overreach) had to either be in 'attainment' for a pollutant
('ambient' concentrations being below the federal standard) or be in
'nonattainment' for a pollutant (concentrations above the federal standard). And this translates into meaning that
those businesses who pollute in 'nonattainment' counties are subject to
stricter regulations...which costs them more...sometimes a lot more... than those
businesses who pollute in 'attainment' counties.

And who did these regulations hurt the most...our most important coal industry followed close behind by our oil industry. But
then again wasn't that Obama's plan right from the start...I sure think
so as over regulating U.S. industries puts many out of business at the same time keeping the
'brethren' in business.

Keeping the 'brethren' in business keeps us dependent on the
'brethren'...so that is this administration's game plan...or was thanks
to the SCOTUS getting this one right.

Over regulating the energy and coal industries to the nth degree. For
example, in regards to the already hurting coal industry, a fairly new
regulation on coal ash was put in place that comes with a whopping $735
million per year price tag. By bowing to environmentalist pressure, the
EPA designated coal ash a hazardous waste which allowed them to claim
that of the 110 million tons of coal ash produced every year that about
40% of said ash recycled by power plants “on occasion” spills out into
the waterways...citing the 2008 spill by the Tennessee Valley Authority
in Kingston, Tennessee as an example...while completely ignoring the
vast majority of times the ash is disposed of properly. Saying the
rule...the regulation...will help prevent future coal ash spills by
putting up more safeguards that will “eventually” afford monetized
benefits of $289 million per year...the EPA turns a blind eye to the
fact that the implementation costs alone of this regulation will cost
thousands of coal workers their jobs as well as outweigh the benefits by
two and a half times...doing so even using an always given 3% discount rate. And that's according to the EPA's very own data.

Nice huh...didn't think so...and neither did the High Court justices.

And as for the oil industry, sometimes they're hit with
double-whammies. For example, individual gas station owners are
regulated by each state as well as the EPA. In fact, Florida was
one state that implemented new regulations requiring gas station owners
to replace existing underground storage tanks with what's called
'double-walled tanks' that can hold gasoline containing up to 10%
ethanol. Claiming these 'double-walled tanks' are both critical and
necessary to protect the groundwater, what most don't understand is that
this replacement can come with a hefty price tag...a price tag as high
as $200,000 per gas station owner...meaning those gas station owners who cannot afford to
switch their gas storage tanks cannot comply with the regulation
so the EPA will force them to close...with the ramifications being that
NOT only will the station owners lose their livelihood but it will put
even more Americans out of work than there are already.

Also, under the 'Clean Air Act' itself, the Obama administration has put
in place a 'supposed' legal requirement that the EPA develop rules for
already existing facilities in regards to oil and gas drilling and the
methane they release into the air when drilling. Now couple this with
even more costly regulations being put upon the electric power plant
industry in regards to carbon dioxide emissions...and all because of
those who cry wolf about 'supposed' but non-existent climate
change...it's the weather folks...it's naturally occurring weather
cycles...and NOTHING more.

And again, thankfully, the SCOTUS saw the truth about cost vs.
profit...about over regulating industry and businesses to the point of
collapse and did the right thing. And while the EPA said in a statement
that they would review the court's decision and take "any appropriate
next steps" when their review is complete, just know "any appropriate
next steps" comes too little too late as this ruling by the SCOTUS...like
last weeks rulings on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage...has so been
decided... NO matter how much Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his minions stamp
their feet, whine, and cry that this time they did NOT get their way.

*********************************************** Voting in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. The dissenting votes were cast by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots